ADAMS GOLF: Pays $5 Mil. to Settlement Fund in Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------In accordance with a settlement agreement reached by Adams Golf, Inc., on October 29, 2009, regarding a consolidated securities class action filed in June 1999 in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware, the company paid $5 million to the settlement fund in March 2010.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with our initial public offering and sought rescissory or compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. In particular, the complaints alleged that the company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement, but remains subject to a final court approval, shareholder class approval, and appeal.

The proposed settlement provides for a total payment to the class of $16.5 million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if any) by the Company in connection with the Company's litigation against its former insurance broker Thilman & Filipini, LLC, and the Company's former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company. If approved, the settlement will lead to a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the litigation.

As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO have agreed to release the Company from any indemnification obligation. Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders to proceed with this settlement, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

APPLE INC: Suit Complains About iPad Unlimited Data Service Plan----------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Apple and AT&T defrauded consumers by promising iPad purchasers an "unlimited data service plan," and then eliminating the plan after they had bought the computers, a class action claims in San Jose Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Weisblatt v. Apple Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02553 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

ATRINSIC INC: Pays $1 Mil. Settlement in "Allen" Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Atrinsic, Inc., paid $1 million to settle the class action proceeding in the State of California in Allen v. Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New Motion, Inc., pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On March 10, 2010, Atrinsic received final approval of its settlement to the Class Action. The settlement covers all of the Company's mobile products, web sites and advertising practices through December 2009.

All costs of the settlement and defense were accrued for in 2008; therefore the settlement did not impact the Company's results of operations in 2009 and is not expected to impact the Company's results of operations in 2010.

As a result of the State of California Settlement and final approval of the judgment, Atrinsic has filed stays, and will file dispositive motions, in the following actions, which it is either directly named in or has assumed the defense of the following cases:

Atrinsic, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- formerly known as New Motion, Inc., is a digital advertising and marketing services company in the United States. Atrinsic is organized as a single segment with two principal offerings: Transactional services and Subscription services.

AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Suit in Delaware Still Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Aviat Networks, Inc., fka Harris Stratex Networks, Inc.,continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's May 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.

The Company and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors were named in a federal securities class action complaint filed on September 15, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the Company's shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation. This action relates to the restatement of the Company's prior financial statements.

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008. Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.

BEAR LAKE GOLD: Hearing on $1.3 Mil. Settlement Set for Aug. 10---------------------------------------------------------------The class action commenced in 2009 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") against Bear Lake Gold Ltd. (the "Company" or "BLG") and certain of its current or former officers and directors (the "Defendants") was settled on May 12, 2010. The action arose from the discovery by the Company in July 2009 of inconsistencies in the exploration results for its Larder Lake Property, and its consequent withdrawal of all such results. Gary Henault, the plaintiff in a proposed class action sought damages for an alleged misrepresentation.

A formal settlement agreement has been executed by the parties (the "Settlement"). The Settlement requires approval by the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. The plaintiff will bring a motion for approval of the Settlement on August 10, 2010 at 10:00 am at, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario (the "Approval Motion").

If approved by the Court and not cancelled, as described below, the Settlement will resolve the claims of all Class Members who do not opt out of the class action, which are defined as persons and entities who purchased common stock of BLG traded on the TSX-V during the period from July 18, 2006 to and including July 17, 2009, and who held some or all of those shares when trading in BLG's common stock was halted on July 17, 2009. The Defendants, BLG's past or present parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns, and any member of the individual Defendants' families and any entity in which any of them has or had a legal or de facto controlling interest ("Excluded Persons") are not permitted to participate in the Settlement.

The Settlement provides that the Defendants will pay $1,305,000 (the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement of the claims of Class Members, including legal fees, disbursements, taxes and administration expenses in return for releases and a dismissal of the class action. The Class Members who do not opt out and who file a proper claim will be paid a pro rata share of the balance of the settlement amount after payment of fees, expenses, and taxes. The settlement may be cancelled if the shares purchased by those who opt out exceeds 5% of the total shares purchased by all Class Members and held at the end of the Class Period. The Company will also implement certain corporate governance enhancements. Mr. Bernard Boily, the Company's former Vice President of Exploration, has agreed not to accept a position as an officer or director of an Ontario reporting issuer for a period of 10 years from the date of the Settlement.

The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations against them.

A Settlement Approval Motion Will Be Held in Ontario

The Settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be implemented. Class Members may, but are not required to, attend at the Approval Motion which will be held on August 10, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., at Osgoode Hall, 60 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario.

If the Settlement is approved, another notice to Class Members will be published which will provide instructions on how to make a claim to receive compensation from the Settlement and how to opt out of the class if the Class Member does not wish to share in, or be bound by, the Settlement.

Class Members who approve or do not oppose the Settlement do not need to appear at the Approval Motion or take any other action at this time.

Class Counsel will Seek Court Approval of their Fees and Administration Expenses

In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the Settlement, Siskinds LLP will seek the Court's approval of its legal fees not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Amount, plus disbursements and applicable taxes ("Class Counsel Fees") at the Approval Motion. Siskinds will also seek the appointment of an Administrator for the Settlement whose fees, together with any other costs relating to approval, notification, implementation and administration of the Settlement ("Administration Expenses"), will be paid from the Settlement Amount. Class Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses will be deducted from the Settlement Amount before it is distributed to Class Members.

Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The remainder of the Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses (the "Net Settlement Amount") will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with the Plan of Allocation which is also subject to Court approval.

The amount of each Class Member's actual compensation from the Net Settlement Amount will depend upon: (i) the number and the price of BLG's securities purchased by the Class Member during the Class Period; (ii) when the Class Member sold the BLG securities purchased during the Class Period and the price at which such securities were sold; (iii) whether the Class Member continues to hold some or all of their BLG securities purchased during the Class Period; and (iv) the total number of claims for compensation filed with the Administrator and their value.

Copies of the Settlement and the proposed Plan of Allocation may be found at www.classaction.ca or by contacting Siskinds at the contact information provided below.

Participation in the Settlement May Affect Other Actions Commenced by Class Members

If the Court approves the Settlement, all Class Members will be bound by its terms, unless they exclude themselves from the Class ("opt out"). This means that if they do not opt out, they may participate in the settlement by filing a proper claim but will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal proceeding against the Defendants or any other person released by the Settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class action. If the Settlement is approved, a notice containing a full explanation of Class Members' right to opt out will be published.

Class Members May Object to the Proposed Settlement

Class Members who wish to comment on or object to the Settlement should do so in writing. All objections should be received by Siskinds LLP (at the address listed below) no later than July 27, 2010. Siskinds will file all such submissions with the Court. You may attend and participate at the settlement hearing whether or not you deliver an objection.

A written objection should include: (i) the Class Member's name, address, telephone number, fax number (where applicable) and email address; (ii) a brief statement outlining the nature of, and reason for, the objection; and (iii); a statement as to whether the objector intends to appear at the Approval Motion in person or through a lawyer, and, if through a lawyer, the name, address, telephone number, fax number and email address of the lawyer.

Questions related to this Notice should NOT be addressed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Instead, for further information, please contact:

BLUE CROSS: Michigan Lawsuit Seeks Better Coverage for Autism-------------------------------------------------------------Kim Kozlowski at The Detroit News reports that Donovan Johns was 3 years old when he was diagnosed with autism after his parents noticed he struggled with speaking, expressing his needs and interacting with others.

His condition has since improved dramatically, his parents say, after therapies that have cost them tens of thousands of dollars.Donovan's family was part of a class-action lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan that led to a landmark settlement and the state's first insurer to offer coverage for autistic children.

But most Michigan insurers still don't cover autism therapies, a situation many are trying to change through lawsuits and legislation to take the financial burden off families. Services, which can cost up to $50,000 annually, are not covered because many insurers deem the therapies experimental. Activists counter research shows many are proven to be effective, especially when implemented early.

"There's a lot more to be done," said Warren resident Chris Johns, Donovan's father. "This condition is devastating, not just from a financial perspective but from an emotional and relationship perspective. It just destroys families."

Autism is a neurological disorder that impairs a person's social, emotional and communication skills. About 1-in-100 American children have the disorder, according to federal studies, including an estimated 14,000 in Michigan.

Though the Michigan House has passed legislation to require insurance companies to cover the costs of therapy for autistic children, and a bipartisan task force is conducting hearings around the state, some autism activists believe it won't become law. That's why attorneys are ready to file lawsuits against Michigan's Medicaid program and other insurers to get children therapeutic coverage.

"We're hoping that once we achieve enough of these victories that all of the insurers will realize this therapy is mainstream and effective and should be authorized," said Gerard Mantese, a Troy attorney who represented the class in the suit against Blue Cross Blue Shield and is working on litigation against other parties.Two weeks ago, a Wayne County Circuit judge denied a motion by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to dismiss a case, paving the way for a $125,000 settlement filed by Cheryl Matthews, Mantese said. Matthews, an Oakland County Circuit judge, alleged the insurance company wrongly refused to pay claims totaling $38,000 for therapy for her autistic son.

The ruling comes as Blue Cross recently mailed checks totaling $680,000 to nearly 100 families after it agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit last year where families said they were wrongly denied reimbursement for a program for their autistic children. Even though the insurer still regards autism therapies as experimental, the company changed its policy in May 2009 to offers employers the option to buy autism coverage for their entire group. The coverage offers 60 treatment sessions, or about 12 weeks, to families with autistic children ages 2 to 5."We felt there was a need out there so we moved to change our policy," said Helen Stojic, a Blue Cross spokeswoman.

Soon after, legislation requiring insurers to pay for better autism treatment was approved by the Michigan House but it has not moved in the state Senate.

Activist Neil Carrick, a Westland resident, says that is not enough. He has enlisted attorneys to sue Michigan Medicaid to pay for services for his 4-year-old son, Zachary Stacer, who has a form of autism and was developmentally delayed by months. After paying thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for therapies, he says you can hardly tell anything is wrong with his son. But that's because he acted early, and was able to afford some services. But that's not the case for everyone.

"The way it is right now, if something doesn't change," Carrick said, "children are going to grow up and not get the care they need."

Since 2001, 21 states have passed laws requiring insurers to provide evidence based, early intervention autism therapies, according to Autism Votes, an initiative of the advocacy group, Autism Speaks. New Hampshire has also passed laws and is awaiting the governor's signature. The laws, which resulted from legislative efforts, differ by state but most all require insurers to provide coverage of evidence-based early intervention autism therapies.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota began covering autism therapies after the state's attorney general won a lawsuit filed in 2001, said Lorri Unumb, senior policy adviser and counsel for Autism Speaks.

The movement comes as research is demonstrating that interventions work, Unumb said, but insurers are not including them in their policies.

"The health insurers have no incentive to revise their plans to reflect the current science unless someone pushes them," Unumb said. "The time has finally come that you have enough families, enough lawyers and activists who were willing to bring this to the attention to the public."

CADBURY ADAMS: B.C. Court Upholds $6 Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement -----------------------------------------------------------------CBC News reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that could bring Canadian chocolate lovers a step closer to compensation from the country's major candy manufacturers.

An investigation by Canada's Competition Bureau has alleged a conspiracy among the manufacturers to artificially inflate the price of chocolate bars sold from 2001 to 2008.

In exchange for providing information against the other companies, Cadbury Adams, along with its distribution company, Itwal Ltd., offered a settlement worth nearly $6 million.

Cadbury's offer is a good deal, according to Luciana Brasil, a Vancouver lawyer involved in the class action.

Settlement challenged

"We were able to negotiate a very favorable settlement," said Brasil. "If we're able to ultimately resolve all the claims against the other parties, then all [plaintiffs in the class action] are going to potentially benefit."

Brasil said it's not yet clear what form that settlement will take.

"Whether that will mean a direct financial benefit or some other kind of benefit, we don't know . at this present moment."

The class action applies to anyone in Canada who bought chocolate made by Nestle, Hershey and Mars between 2001 and 2008, Brasil said.

Hershey is appealing the settlement agreement by Cadbury Adams and the Crown.

The conspiracy allegations have yet to be proven in court.

CHEMTURA CORP: Defends Three Suits over Georgia Warehouse Fire--------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corporation defends three putative state class actions pertaining to the fire at the company's Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company and certain of its former officers and employees were named as defendants in five putative state class action lawsuits filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pertaining to the fire at the company's Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004.

Of the five putative state class actions, two were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, leaving three such lawsuits, all of which are now pending in the Superior Court of Rockdale County, Georgia. These remaining putative state class actions, as well as the putative class action pending in federal district court, seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly arising from the fire.

Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale County, Georgia and in the Martin case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Martin case also seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

CHEMTURA CORP: New York Bankruptcy Court Okays Settlement Pact--------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement agreement resolving a federal securities class action against Chemtura Corporation, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company, certain of its former officers and directors (Crompton Individual Defendants), and certain former directors of the company's predecessor Witco Corp. are defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit, filed on July 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, brought by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of the company's stock between October 1998 and October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements that violated the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-fixing conspiracy. The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who acquired their securities in the Crompton-Witco merger pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and the Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Crompton Individual Defendants. The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the Crompton-Witco merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 17, 2004, and the former directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in February 2005.

On Nov. 28, 2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement. The Federal District Court granted preliminary approval of the November 2008 Settlement Agreement on Dec. 12, 2008, and scheduled a June 12, 2009, final approval hearing which hearing was subsequently rescheduled for Nov. 11, 2009. The November 2008 Settlement Agreement provided for payment by or on behalf of defendants of $21 million.

On Sept. 17, 2009, the Federal District Court entered an order cancelling the final approval hearing of the November 2008 Settlement Agreement due to the automatic stay resulting from Chapter 11 cases. The Federal District Court also denied on Dec. 31, 2009, the motions to dismiss the complaint filed by the company, the Crompton Individual Defendants and the former directors of Witco Corp. The motions to dismiss were denied without prejudice to renew following resolution of the Chapter 11 cases.

In October 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order authorizing the company to enter into a settlement stipulation requiring the return of $9 million that the company transferred to the plaintiffs prior to its Chapter 11 filing in connection with the November 2008 Settlement Agreement.

The company entered into such settlement stipulation, and $9 million was returned to the company.

On April 13, 2010, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement whereby the plaintiffs agreed to accept a total of approximately $11 million to be paid by the company's insurer in full satisfaction of the company's obligations pursuant to the settlement and amended settlement agreements. This matter will be resolved as a settlement class action.

The settlement is subject to the approval of both the Federal District Court and the Bankruptcy Court. On May 4, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of the class action.

DENDREON CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.------------------------------------------------------------Dendreon Corp. continues to defend a securities class action suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning on May 24, 2007, four proposed securities class action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington, on behalf of the company's common stock, purporting to state claims for securities law violations stemming from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the FDA's actions regarding our BLA for Provenge.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., and designated a lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff designated the complaint filed June 6, 2007 in McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., as the operative complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and individual defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the individual defendants, and allowing plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, naming Dendreon, its chief executive officer, and a senior vice president as defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 2, 2008.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2008, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the allegations against the company's chief executive officer based on allegedly false or misleading statements and his sale of Dendreon stock, and denied the remainder of the motion.

The Court gave plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint to reassert their allegations against the company's chief executive officer, and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Jan. 5, 2009.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and allowing leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on June 8, 2009.

On June 29, 2009, defendants filed an answer to the third amended complaint.

The parties have commenced discovery, and trial in this action has been set for October 18, 2010.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of therapeutics that improve cancer treatment options for patients. Dendreon's most advanced product candidate is Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy that has completed two Phase III trials for the treatment of asymptomatic, metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.

DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses Suit-------------------------------------------------------The Tennessee Supreme Court has reversed the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed a class-action lawsuit Dynegy Holdings Inc., according to Dynegy Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The plaintiffs claimed damages resulting from alleged process manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

In February 2007, the Tennessee state court previously dismissed a class action on defendants' motion. Plaintiffs appealed and in November 2007, the case was argued to the appellate court.

In October 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. In December 2008, the defendants applied for leave to appeal the appellate court decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In April 2010, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling and dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims.

The decision is subject to appeal to the U.S. Supreme court.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is engaged in the production and selling of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of generating capacity.

DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Five Suits Pending-----------------------------------------------------Dynegy Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in five cases claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications remains pending, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company, several of its affiliates, the company's former joint venture affiliate and other energy companies were named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in state and federal court.

Many of the cases have been resolved and those which remain are pending in Nevada federal district court.

There are five remaining cases, three of which seek class certification.

All of the cases contain similar claims that individually, and in conjunction with other energy companies, the company engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices in four states by providing false information to natural gas index publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

In November 2009, following defendants' motion for reconsideration, the court invited defendants to renew their motions for summary judgment, which were filed shortly thereafter.

Now fully briefed, the company awaits an order or further instruction from the court. In the interim, discovery and plaintiffs' class certification motion are stayed.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is engaged in the production and selling of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of generating capacity.

INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Texas Still Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Intersections Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The complaint alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an accidental death and disability program.

The defendants each have filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and the motions are pending.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a leading global provider of consumer and corporate identity risk management services. Its premier identity theft, privacy, and consumer solutions are designed to provide high-value opportunities to its marketing partners, including leading financial institutions, Fortune 100 corporations, and other businesses. Intersections also markets full identity theft protection solutions under its brand, Identity Guard(R). Intersections' consumer identity theft protection services have protected more than 30 million consumers.

INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit over Identity Protection Services---------------------------------------------------------------Intersections Inc.'s faces putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Feb. 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed against the company, Bank of America Corporation, and FIA Card Services, N.A.

The complaint alleges various claims based on the provision of identity protection services to the named plaintiff.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a leading global provider of consumer and corporate identity risk management services. Its premier identity theft, privacy, and consumer solutions are designed to provide high-value opportunities to its marketing partners, including leading financial institutions, Fortune 100 corporations, and other businesses. Intersections also markets full identity theft protection solutions under its brand, Identity Guard(R). Intersections' consumer identity theft protection services have protected more than 30 million consumers.

JAVELIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its merger with Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to a Form 10-Q filed by Javelin with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 5, 2010, Javelin was served with a complaint naming it, certain of its directors, MPI, and MPI Merger Sub, Inc., as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, Schnipper v. Watson, No. 09-5439 (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 23, 2009). The Complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the MPI Merger Agreement. Two other complaints, Parrish v. Watson, No. 10-0029 (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 5, 2010) and Andrews v. Driscoll, No. 10-0049 (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 6, 2010), making substantially similar allegations, were filed against Javelin and certain of the other defendants identified following the filing of the Complaint. These actions were consolidated into a single action.

On April 1, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking expedited discovery in the consolidated case. The defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated action. The plaintiffs have moved for leave to amend the consolidated complaint in order to bring additional claims relating to the proposed transaction with Hospira Inc.; the company intends to oppose this motion. While Javelin is unable to predict the final outcome of these lawsuits, it believes that the allegations in both the original consolidated complaint and the proposed amended complaint are without merit and the claims in the original consolidated complaint are also moot, and the company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on Case v. Units Set for Late 2010-----------------------------------------------------------A state case against Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries has been set for trial in late 2010, according to the Company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2010.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in Federal District Court in Boston, Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in these cases include classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.

The MDL Court identified Class 2 and Class 3 of Massachusetts-only private insurers providing "Medi-gap" insurance coverage and private payers for physician-administered drugs where payments were based on Average Wholesale Price, and a national class, or Class 1, of individuals who made co-payments for physician-administered drugs covered by Medicare. A trial of the two Massachusetts-only class actions concluded before the MDL Court in December 2006. In June 2007, the MDL Court issued post-trial rulings, dismissing the Johnson & Johnson defendants from the case regarding all claims of Classes 2 and 3, and subsequently of Class 1 as well. Plaintiffs appealed the Class 1 judgment and, in September 2009, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings in the District Court.

AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to trial against other manufacturers. One state case against certain of the Company's subsidiaries has been set for trial in late 2010, and other state cases are likely to be set for trial thereafter.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of a range ofproducts in the healthcare field. The company has more than 250operating companies. It operates in three segments: Consumer,Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.

KENEXA CORP: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Pennsylvania---------------------------------------------------------------Kenexa Corporation defends a putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed June 11, 2009, against Kenexa and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer on behalf of a class of Kenexa's investors who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between May 8, 2007 and Nov. 7, 2007.

The suit was filed the Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with various public statements made by Kenexa.

The action seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and expenses.

Kenexa Corp. -- http://www.kenexa.com/-- provides business solutions for human resources. It helps global organizationsmultiply business success by identifying the best individuals for every job and fostering optimal work environments for every organization. For more than 20 years, Kenexa has studied human behavior and team dynamics in the workplace, and has developed the software solutions, business processes and expert consulting that help organizations impact positive business outcomes through HR. Kenexa is the only company that offers a comprehensive suite of unified products and services thatsupport the entire employee lifecycle from pre-hire to exit.

KENEXA CORP: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed--------------------------------------------------A putative class action against Kenexa Corporation filed on July 16, 2009, has been voluntarily dismissed, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the company's investors who purchased its publicly traded securities between May 8, 2007 and Nov. 7, 2007.

Kenexa Corp. -- http://www.kenexa.com/-- provides business solutions for human resources. It helps global organizationsmultiply business success by identifying the best individuals for every job and fostering optimal work environments for every organization. For more than 20 years, Kenexa has studied human behavior and team dynamics in the workplace, and has developed the software solutions, business processes and expert consulting that help organizations impact positive business outcomes through HR. Kenexa is the only company that offers a comprehensive suite of unified products and services thatsupport the entire employee lifecycle from pre-hire to exit.

KINDER MORGAN: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Still Ongoing---------------------------------------------------------------Discovery in two consolidated suits against Kinder Morgan, Inc.,in connection with its going private transaction is ongoing,according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning on May 29, 2006, the day after the proposal for the company's Going Private transaction was announced, and in the days following, eight putative Class Action lawsuits were filed in Harris County (Houston), Texas and seven putative Class Action lawsuits were filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas against, among others, Kinder Morgan, Inc., its Board of Directors, the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, and several corporate officers.

Texas Actions

By order of the Harris County District Court dated June 26, 2006, each of the eight Harris County cases were consolidated into the Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al case, Cause No. 2006-33011, in the 164th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, which challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate and unfair to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s public stockholders.

On September 8, 2006, interim class counsel filed their Consolidated Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and Abetting in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Board of Directors and certain members of senior management breached their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger agreement. They sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants, and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed Answers to the Consolidated Petition on October 9, 2006, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations and denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

Kansas Actions

By order of the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas dated June 26, 2006, each of the seven Kansas cases were consolidated into the Consol. Case No. 06 C 801; In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation; in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12. On August 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and Amended Class Action Petition in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan's Board of Directors and certain members of senior management breached their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger agreement. They sought, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger agreement and any action taken to effect the acquisition of Kinder Morgan and its assets by the buyout group, damages, disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants, and attorney's fees.

In late 2006, the Kansas and Texas Courts appointed the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special Master in both consolidated cases "to control all of the pretrial proceedings in both the Kansas and Texas Class Actions arising out of the proposed private offer to purchase the stock of the public shareholders of Kinder Morgan, Inc." On November 21, 2006, the plaintiffs in In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation filed a Third Amended Class Action Petition with Special Master Walsh. This Petition was later filed under seal with the Kansas District Court on December 27, 2006.

Following extensive expedited discovery, the Plaintiffs in both consolidated actions filed an application for a preliminary injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting of shareholders for the purposes of voting on the proposed merger, which was scheduled for December 19, 2006.

On December 18, 2006, Special Master Walsh issued a Report and Recommendation concluding, among other things, that "plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the probability of ultimate success on the merits of their claims in this joint litigation." Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that the plaintiffs were "not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the holding of the special meeting of Kinder Morgan, Inc. shareholders scheduled for December 19, 2006."

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2008.

In August, September and October 2008, the Plaintiffs in both consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc. directors who did not participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the members of the special committee of the board of directors), Kinder Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc. In addition, on November 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the Texas trial court issued an order staying all proceedings in the Texas actions until such time as a final judgment will be issued in the Kansas actions. The effect of this stay is that the consolidated matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial court.

In February 2009, the parties submitted an agreed upon order which has been entered by the Kansas trial court certifying a class consisting of "All holders of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common stock, during the period of August 28, 2006, through May 30, 2007, and their transferees, successors and assigns. Excluded from the class are defendants, members of their immediate families or trusts for the benefit of defendants or their immediate family members, and any majority-owned affiliates of any defendant."

The parties agreed that the certification and definition of the above class was subject to revision and without prejudice to defendants' right to seek decertification of the class or modification of the class definition.

The parties are currently engaged in consolidated discovery in these matters.

Kinder Morgan, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is one of the largest energy transportation and storage companies in North America. Kinder Morgan, Inc. owns the general partner and significant limited partner interests in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: KMP), one of the largest publicly traded pipeline limited partnerships in the United States with an enterprise value in excess of $20 billion. The company operates or owns an interest in more than 35,000 miles of pipelines that transport products such as natural gas, gasoline, crude oil and CO2, and over 170 terminals that store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials like coal and petroleum coke. The company has both regulated and non-regulated operations.

LOJACK CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Certification of 3 Claims--------------------------------------------------------------In a May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, LoJack Corporation said that the California State Appellate Court affirmed class certification with respect to three claims filed by an employee alleging labor code violations.

On April 5, 2006, a suit was filed against LoJack Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by an employee alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action status. The plaintiff contends that the company improperly credited break time and overtime pay, and seeks unspecified monetary and injunctive relief. In September 2007, the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiff's federal law claims which represented the largest part of the company's potential exposure. The plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision and, on August 21, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment except as to the claim for compensation for the required postliminary data transmission, which was vacated. The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit and on March 2, 2010 the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment except as to (i) the claim for compensation for commuting under state law and (ii) the required postliminary data transmission, which were vacated. The company's petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit was denied.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in federal court, in November 2007, the plaintiff also filed state law claims in California State Court. In January 2008, the company removed the state law claims to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to California State Court and that motion was subsequently granted. The plaintiff's motion for class certification and the company's motion for summary judgment and opposition to class certification were heard on April 16, 2009. In June 2009, the California State Court granted the plaintiff's claims for class certification with respect to 9 claims. The court denied certification with respect to 5 of the claims and did not rule on the company's motion for summary judgment. The company appealed this decision and a hearing took place on March 18, 2010. On March 26, 2010, the California State Appellate Court denied certification respect to six claims and affirmed certification with respect to three claims, including missed meal and rest breaks.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global provider of technology products and services for the tracking and recovery of stolen mobile assets. LoJack's integration with law enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles, motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang. Under the domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles, construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous materials. Through the international segment, its licensed stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries and territories worldwide. Revenue from the Boomerang segment is derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and BoomerangXpress Units. In April 2008, it acquired the assets of LSC Locator Systems Corp.

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has granted Lufkin Industries, Inc.'s motion to stay the payment of damages as final judgment in a class action complaint alleging race discrimination pending a decision on appeals filed, according to a Form 10-Q filed by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October 2004. Although plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the Company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney fees that the Company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and expenses.

The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the Company appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiff's appeal for class certification of a class disparate treatment claim. Plaintiff's claim on the issue of the Company's promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion. The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the District Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing authority.

On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiff's submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions that supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests. As a result of these different results, the court requested further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to render a final decision. The judge reviewed both parties arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original request. The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters. Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling $5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award of attorney fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had not been issued. The court commented that this issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas notified the Company that it had entered a final judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Court ordered the Company to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The Company had previously estimated the total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment issued by the Court on January 15, 2010, related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Company recorded provisions for these judgments in 2009.

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's final judgment. On January 21, 2010, The Company filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same court. In addition, the Company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay.

Lufkin Industries, Inc. sells and services oil field pumping units, power transmission products, foundry castings and highway trailers throughout the world. The Company has vertically integrated all vital technologies required to design, manufacture and market its products.

MAKE IT WORK: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages------------------------------------------------Jay Samora, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Make It Work, Inc., Case No. 2010-00379331 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. June 8, 2010), accuses the computer repair company offailing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay the minimum wage for each hour worked, failing to pay all wages due upon termination, failing to provide itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code.

Mr. Samora was employed as a "Neighborhood Technology Consultant" by Make It Work from July 2008 through the present date.

MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Final Judgment on Jury Verdict Remains Pending----------------------------------------------------------------The final judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, on a jury rendered verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg against Mediacom Capital Corp., remains pending.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action, captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that the company, in areas where there was no cable franchise failed to obtain permission from landowners to place Mediacom's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from other third parties.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.

Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million. Legal fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.

Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of $42.0 million in compensatory damages.

Notwithstanding the verdict in the trial described below, the company remains unable to reasonably determine the amount ofMediacom's final liability in this lawsuit. Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3 million. This estimate did not include any estimate of damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.

On March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 andpunitive damages of $35,000.

The Court did not enter a final judgment on this verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at this time bejudicially collected.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Mediacom Capital Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/-- is engaged in provision of products and services, including videoservices, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HD or HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service; and phone service. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation.

The suit was filed on March 5, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint asserts that the potential class is comprised of all persons who purchased premium cable services from Mediacom and rented a cable box distributed by Mediacom. The plaintiff alleges that Mediacom improperly "tied" the rental of cable boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiff also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

MCC was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010.

Mediacom Capital Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/-- is engaged in provision of products and services, including videoservices, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HD or HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service; and phone service. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation.

META FINANCIAL: Two Suits Over Certificates Remain Pending----------------------------------------------------------Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in two class action cases involving the sale of purported MetaBank certificates of deposit, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank certificates of deposit continue to be addressed. Specifically, these cases involve the sale of fraudulent certificates of deposit using MetaBank's name and standard form of certificate of deposit. Those certificates of deposits were apparently sold by a former MetaBank employee to various financial institutions through an independent broker.

Since its filing of Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, the matter of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, Inc., filed in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, TX, Cause No. 08-06994, has been settled for a payment and the matter dismissed with prejudice.

In all, nine cases have been filed, and of those nine, two have been dismissed, and three have been settled for payments that the Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the costs of litigation.

The Company is vigorously defending the four remaining actions. Two of the cases are class action cases although to date no class has been certified. The remaining two cases share similar fact patterns as each Plaintiff seeks recovery of $99,000 and other specified damages, in connection with a fraudulent CD.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.bankmeta.com/-- is a holding company. The company through banking subsidiariesMetaBank and MetaBank West Central (MetaBank WC), provides arange of financial services. The principal business of MetaBankconsists of attracting retail deposits from the general publicand investing those funds primarily in one- to four-familyresidential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family realestate, agricultural operating and real estate, construction,consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank'smarket area. The company operates in areas, including the Iowacounties of Adair, Buena Vista, Dallas, Guthrie, Pocahontas, Polk and Sac, and the South Dakota counties of Brookings, Lincoln and Minnehaha. The company also has a wholly owned subsidiary, First Midwest Financial Capital Trust. The MetaBank has four market areas and the Meta Payment Systems division: Northwest Iowa, Brookings, Central Iowa, and Sioux Empire.

NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Shareholder Settlement Gets Final Court Nod--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of Utah has entered final approval of a stipulation of settlement relating to a shareholder class action filed in 2006 against Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc., and certain present and former officer and directors, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Stipulation of Settlement obtained preliminary court approval on October 8, 2009. On February 10, 2010, the day after it held the final approval hearing, the Court formally entered an Order and Final Judgment on the Stipulation dated February 9, 2010, approving the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds, the application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses by the settlement class counsel, and the application for incentive awards to the settlement class representatives.

Among other things, the Final Judgment also included findings by the Court that notice of the action and of the proposed settlement had been properly given to the class members and that no one had opted out of the class or objected to any of the terms of the Stipulation. Furthermore, the Final Judgment provided that the Company and the individual defendants were released from all of the Released Claims, as defined by the Stipulation, and that the Consolidated Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

There was no appeal of the Final Judgment within 30 days following the entry of the Final Judgment. As a result, the case is now formally concluded and the Claims Administrator is proceeding with distribution of the settlement proceeds in accordance with the Stipulation.

NEW YORK: Sued for Denying Hearing Rights to Medicaid Applicants----------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that the New York State Department of Health denies hearings to people whose home health care benefits are reduced, a class action claims in Brooklyn Federal Court.

PROGRESS ENERGY: Court Dismisses Nuclear Cost-Recovery Suit-----------------------------------------------------------A lawsuit against Florida Power Corporation (PEF) relating to PEF's nuclear cost-recovery has been dismissed by the court, according to Progress Energy, Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Feb. 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against PEF in state circuit court in Sumter County, Fla., alleging that the Florida nuclear cost-recovery statute (Section 366.93, Florida Statutes) violates the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund of all monies collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with interest.

The complaint also requested that the court grant class action status to the plaintiffs.

On April 6, 2010, PEF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The trial judge issued an order on May 3, 2010, dismissing the complaint.

Progress Energy, Inc. -- http://www.progress-energy.com/-- is a holding company primarily engaged in the regulated electric utility business. The company's segments are Carolina Power & Light Company (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation (PEF), both of which are primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity. The Corporate and Other segment primarily includes amounts applicable to the activities of the company and Progress Energy Service Company (PESC) and other miscellaneous non-regulated businesses. The Utilities have more than 22,000 megawatts of regulated electric generation capacity and serves approximately 3.1 million retail electric customers, as well as other load-serving entities. At Dec. 31, 2009, PEC had a total summer generating capacity (including jointly owned capacity) of 12,585 megawatts. At Dec. 31, 2009, PEF had a total summer generating capacity (including jointly owned capacity) of 10,013 megawatts.

STAMPS.COM: Appeal Filed in Settlement Agreement Approval---------------------------------------------------------An appeal has been filed on the approval of the proposed settlement relating to purported class-action lawsuits filedagainst Stamps.com Inc., according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its current and former board members and officers, as a defendantin several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial publicoffering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock.

In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would not have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that the class could not be certified as defined.

In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which has been documented and filed with the court for its review and approval. As with the company's previously proposed settlement, this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make any payments.

The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in June 2009.

In October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this action, which does not require the company to make any payments. The court approval has been appealed.

Stamps.com Inc. -- http://www.stamps.com/-- is a provider of Internet-based postage solutions. Its customers use thecompany's service to mail and ship a variety of mail pieces, including postcards, envelopes, flats, and packages, using arange of United States Postal Service (the USPS) mail classes including First Class Mail, Priority Mail, Express Mail, MediaMail, Parcel Post, and others. The company's customers include home businesses, small businesses, corporations, andindividuals. It is an USPS-licensed vendor that offers personal computer (PC) Postage in a software-only business model.

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Georgia----------------------------------------------------------------Synovus Financial Corp. is facing a consolidated class action in Georgia relating to securities fraud, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1 09-CV-1811) alleging, among other things, that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws, including purported exposure to Synovus' Sea Island lending relationship and the impact of real estate values as a threat to Synovus' credit, capital position, and business, and failed to adequately and timely record losses for impaired loans. The plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1 09-CV-3069), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class Action. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and injunctive relief.

On December 1, 2009, the Court consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF, holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and fact."

Synovus and the individual named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit allegations.

TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.---------------------------------------------------------------Tellabs, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs; Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs; and Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs. Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of the Company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the company's securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about the company pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint. The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action complaint. On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on January 21, 2005. On January 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district court.

On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims.

On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On November 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded case. On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On February 24, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is ongoing.

Tellabs, Inc. -- http://www.tellabs.com/-- is engaged in designing and marketing equipment and services to communicationscustomers worldwide. The company's products and services enableits customers to deliver wireline and wireless voice, data andvideo services to business and residential customers. It sellsits products domestically and internationally through its fieldsales force and distributors/partners. The company's customersare primarily communication services providers, including localexchange carriers (LECs); national post, telephone and telegraph(PTT) administrators, wireless service providers, multiple system operators (MSOs), and competitive service providers (CSPs). Its customer base also includes distributors, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), system integrators and government agencies. The company operates in three segments: Broadband, Transport and Services.

TRIAD GUARANTY: Oral Arguments in "Phillips" Suit Set for Aug. 30-----------------------------------------------------------------Triad Guaranty Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint of James L. Phillips has been scheduled for hearing on August 30, 2010, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On February 6, 2009, Mr. Phillips served a complaint against Triad Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between October 26, 2006 and April 1, 2008 and the complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the Company and two of its present or former officers.

The court appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed on June 22, 2009.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2009 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 20, 2009.

Triad Guaranty's reply was filed on November 19, 2009. Triad Guaranty Inc. -- http://www.triadguaranty.com/-- is a holding Company. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, TriadGuaranty Insurance Corporation (Triad), the Company providedprivate mortgage insurance coverage in the United States. Triadceased issuing new commitments for mortgage guaranty insurancecoverage on July 15, 2008, and is operating the business in run-off. Triad no longer writes new mortgage insurance policies butcontinues to service the existing policies. Servicing existingpolicies includes receiving premiums on policies that remain inforce; cancelling coverage at the insured's request; terminatingpolicies for non-payment of premium; working with borrowers indefault to remedy the default and/or mitigate the Company's loss, and settling all legitimate filed claims per the Company'scontractual obligations. Prior to the commencement of run-off on July 15, 2008, the Company offered principally two products,Primary and Modified Pool mortgage insurance.

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Accused of Assessing Bogus "Trauma Charges"---------------------------------------------------------------Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that the University Medical Center of Nevada netted "millions of dollars" through bogus "trauma" charges assessed to emergency room patients who were not treated for traumas, a class action claims in Clark County Court.

Karla Reyes-Sandino says she was taken to the hospital after a car crash in March. She says a nurse evaluated her and noted that she did not meet "Trauma Field Criteria." Ms. Reyes-Sandino says she was released 90 minutes later.

A month later, UMC billed her $11,830.10 for the visit, $1,370 of which was described on the bill as "Trauma Intermd Hos," while another $6,739 was for "Level I Trauma FAcili681."

The lawsuit accuses the hospital of assessing the bogus fees since 2000.

"For years, UMC unlawfully billed and collected from emergency room patients millions of dollars in 'trauma' charges when the patients were not trauma patients," the lawsuit states.

A copy of the Complaint in Reyes-Sandino v. University of Medical Center of Nevada, et al., Case No. A-10-618633-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available at:

VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending----------------------------------------------------------------An appeal filed by plaintiffs regarding a ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granting final judgment in favor of the defendants in a consolidated securities suit against Vertro, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The complaints alleged that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period, the Company made certain misleading statements and omitted material information.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009. On December 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Vertro, Inc., formerly MIVA, Inc., -- http://www.miva.com/-- is an Internet company that owns and operates the ALOT productportfolio. The company operated its range of products andservices through two divisions: MIVA Direct and MIVA Media as ofDec. 31, 2008. MIVA Direct offers home page, desktop application and Internet browser toolbar products under the ALOT brand. The ALOT Home Page, ALOT Desktop and ALOT Toolbar are designed to make the Internet easy for consumers by providing direct access to affinity content and search results. The products generate approximately two million Internet searches per day. MIVA Media connected buyers and sellers online by displaying advertisements in response to consumer search or browsing activity on select Internet properties. Prior to the MIVA Media Sale, MIVA Media was an auction based pay-per-click advertising network that was operated across North America and in Europe. On March 12, 2009, Adknowledge, Inc. acquired MIVA Media, the media division of the company.

WINN-DIXIE: Discovery in Florida FCRA Violations Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is underway in a putative class action lawsuit against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the company was served with a putative class action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging company-wide violations of the FCRA related to the company's background check procedures.

The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit, has answered the complaint and has filed motions asserting various defenses to the claims.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one of the nation's largest food retailers. Founded in 1925, the company is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL. The company currently operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more than 400 in-store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and Mississippi.

WINN-DIXIE: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in South Florida-------------------------------------------------------Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., faces a purported collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, the company was served with a purported collective action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. alleging violations of the FLSA related to unpaid overtime wages. The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit and will file an answer to the complaint accordingly.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one of the nation's largest food retailers. Founded in 1925, the company is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL. The company currently operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more than 400 in-store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and Mississippi.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.